So Why Have the Democrats Struggled?

January 9, 2008

Over the next few days, a group of Congressional experts will try to answer the big questions that came out of the Capitol last year: Were the Democrats as hapless as the press made them out to be? How could've they been more effective in meeting those filibustering Republicans head-on? What happened with the timetable for withdrawal? And, hey, where's Rahm when you need him? You can read their responses here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven, Part Eight, Part Nine, Part Ten, Part Eleven.

I wonder if you guys put any stock in Charlie Rangel’s theory, floated in the “Democrats Blaming Each Other” dirge I linked above, that Democrats (in the Senate in particular) have “Stockholm syndrome,” which is defined in this Medical Dictionary as “an extraordinary phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor.” (The dictionary adds helpfully: “The Stockholm syndrome is not limited to Swedes.”)

Obviously, Rangel’s choice of phrase was in no small part a sort of bitter joke. But is there some reality there? Are Democrats: a) prone to resigning themselves too easily to legislative defeats; b) afraid that if they strong-arm Republicans they will have Succumbed to the Vices of Power; c) too sympathetic to the plight of moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or John Warner who talk a reasonable game but usually end up going with their leadership; or d) paralyzed by their fear and awe of the Republicans’ tactical prowess under Mitch McConnell? And if they are afflicted by any of these problems--well, why? Is it a failure of Senate leadership, or some deeper difficulty in governing from a liberal perspective?

I have some sympathy with (d), because I’ll say it: I have fear and awe of the Republicans’ tactical prowess. It turns out years of honing one’s parliamentary warfare in the majority translates into the minority pretty well. Take a look at this graph, which was making the rounds on the blogs at the end of last year:

Is there any way to stop this filibuster insanity? Corollary: If Chuck Schumer ran everything and not Harry Reid, would the Senate be a crueler place, but also a more disciplined place? Would that red bar on the right look shorter?